"House of Cards" Look

[Jason Honeycutt]

I'm just a Scarlet owner but I'm so amazed by the look of "House of Cards", shot with an Epic and Master Primes. I'm wondering, though, how does Fincher('s DP) get that amazing look? I've seen people with the same camera and lenses have it come out very 'videoish'. The show looks cinematic and soft. I'm curious if anyone knows if they do some extra processing or just straight to post with it looking like that.

 

[Andrew Walker]

Shallow DOF helps.

 

[Matthew Scott]

I've been told a few times that my recent shoot almost has a house of cards look.....even though I've never seen the show (will do though) . . . I have created a lighting setup/tutorial page on my blog that demonstrates how I got the look, and there is also a grading tutorial that goes further with the look.

Check out my posts here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?94716-DRAGON-CAN-WAIT!-Some-grabs-from-today-s-shoot

and here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?95699-NEW-REDCINE-X-TUTORIAL

For more info.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm just a Scarlet owner but I'm so amazed by the look of "House of Cards", shot with an Epic and Master Primes. I'm wondering, though, how does Fincher('s DP) get that amazing look? I've seen people with the same camera and lenses have it come out very 'videoish'. The show looks cinematic and soft. I'm curious if anyone knows if they do some extra processing or just straight to post with it looking like that.

American Cinematographer has a great write up about it. A big part of style or "syntax" of the show comes from Fincher's "limitations". He has certain rules of things they can and can't do, and these LIMITATIONS create a very strong narrative style.

From what I remember: No handheld. No steadycam. Camera moves are all on sticks or gentle dolly/crane. They use very specific focal lengths. Almost everything is shot on the 27 and 32 (maybe the 35, someone check!). If you think about it, these focal lengths are the "normals", the ones that render the world almost as we see it: they are neither overly wide-angle or telephoto. This matter of fact "look" at Frank's world helps us see him and his world clinically, like he himself does (I'm riffing here, but I think I'm right in this assumption). For coverage they "stack" the cameras one on top of the other for when they need tights. There was no mention of what the tight focal length was, but I presumed it was something slightly more tele like a 40 or a 50.

 

[Jason Honeycutt]

I've been told a few times that my recent shoot almost has a house of cards look.....even though I've never seen the show (will do though) . . . I have created a lighting setup/tutorial page on my blog that demonstrates how I got the look, and there is also a grading tutorial that goes further with the look.

Check out my posts here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?94716-DRAGON-CAN-WAIT!-Some-grabs-from-today-s-shoot

and here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?95699-NEW-REDCINE-X-TUTORIAL

For more info.

Great stuff, I remember you on the LED discussion, right? Weren't you the one who said you bought some cheap LEDs and they worked great? I actually took that advice to heart and just bought a mix and match set from Amazon/Fotodiox. I think ePhoto lights are the same? I was going to get cheap Ikans but you or something said these kinda were fine, no complaints. They seem great to me, just on my personal, little projects I've been playing with. For the price of one Ikan, I got two 1000s and one portable 500.

Sorry to get off my own topic

 

[Jason Honeycutt]

American Cinematographer has a great write up about it. A big part of style or "syntax" of the show comes from Fincher's "limitations". He has certain rules of things they can and can't do, and these LIMITATIONS create a very strong narrative style.

From what I remember: No handheld. No steadycam. Camera moves are all on sticks or gentle dolly/crane. They use very specific focal lengths. Almost everything is shot on the 27 and 32 (maybe the 35, someone check!). If you think about it, these focal lengths are the "normals", the ones that render the world almost as we see it: they are neither overly wide-angle or telephoto. This matter of fact "look" at Frank's world helps us see him and his world clinically, like he himself does (I'm riffing here, but I think I'm right in this assumption). For coverage they "stack" the cameras one on top of the other for when they need tights. There was no mention of what the tight focal length was, but I presumed it was something slightly more tele like a 40 or a 50.

Wow, I'm shocked about the lengths on those, but it makes sense. There's just such a nice depth to the shots. Also, you're correct that, like everything Fincher does, it's all mounted shots, no shortcuts.

I wish I could find an example offhand, like something I've seen on Vimeo or Youtube where someone's used an Epic or Scarlet and the same lenses and it just looks horrendous, like Mini DV video. I've always thought REDs were pretty idiot-proof but videos like those always scared me.

The network I work at, the opposite is true with one of our shows shooting on Alexa (I shouldn't name it, for obvious job-security reasons) but it looks suuuuuuper flat. I know some people want to just say Alexa's amazing but it's not better than Epic in my mind, but the choice of glass and post-process is soooooo critical. Then you see a masterpiece like "House of Cards" and it makes you wonder how it looks so great, even in natural light conditions. I'm always curious about people's ISO and shutter speed, if they deviate from 1/48.

 

[Mike P.]

Nick, is that American Cinematographer article online somewhere? What month is it?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick, is that American Cinematographer article online somewhere? What month is it?

Its the Feb issue with Zero Dark on cover.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The network I work at, the opposite is true with one of our shows shooting on Alexa (I shouldn't name it, for obvious job-security reasons) but it looks suuuuuuper flat. I know some people want to just say Alexa's amazing but it's not better than Epic in my mind, but the choice of glass and post-process is soooooo critical. Then you see a masterpiece like "House of Cards" and it makes you wonder how it looks so great, even in natural light conditions. I'm always curious about people's ISO and shutter speed, if they deviate from 1/48.

Yeah I work at a cable network and there's a scripted series here shot on Alexa with big zooms. Lots of Classic Soft. Looks pretty flat. The set is not very dynamic and they have a bunch of cameras and it feels very paint by numbers. There's no love. The camera and glass at a certain point can't make up for a lack of magic in the set, art direction, lighting, framing and direction. When everything gets streamlined into a formula, it loses all specificity, snap, and energy. Both the Alexa and Epic are great. It's what you do with them that counts.

But in the case of House of Cards, I think it goes beyond technical specifics. It's about so much more than the camera and glass. They have a style, and they know it. That shows KNOWS what it is. From the lighting, to the performance, to the directing, to the syntax within the camera dept, to every small detail, that series lives and breathes what it is. And because of that...it comes to life...and leaves an impact like only a great work of art does.

 

[Jason Honeycutt]

Yeah I work at a cable network and there's a scripted series here shot on Alexa with big zooms. Lots of Classic Soft. Looks pretty flat. The set is not very dynamic and they have a bunch of cameras and it feels very paint by numbers. There's no love. The camera and glass at a certain point can't make up for a lack of magic in the set, art direction, lighting, framing and direction. When everything gets streamlined into a formula, it loses all specificity, snap, and energy. Both the Alexa and Epic are great. It's what you do with them that counts.

But in the case of House of Cards, I think it goes beyond technical specifics. It's about so much more than the camera and glass. They have a style, and they know it. That shows KNOWS what it is. From the lighting, to the performance, to the directing, to the syntax within the camera dept, to every small detail, that series lives and breathes what it is. And because of that...it comes to life...and leaves an impact like only a great work of art does.

Yeah, I think in the cable world, it gets into that 'paint by numbers' mentality because of the budget and time constraints where they don't usually have time to really block out a show... it's just get it done, "Here's our WS, MS, and CU." Our main show does really, really well... it's shot on Alexa but, like you were saying, it's super flat. The audience doesn't seem to care but it's hard (as a RED owner) to keep hearing how amazing Alexa is by people who have not a clue, in office jobs just repeating what they've heard. We also have a show doing super well, shot on RED, but again, it too gets a little rushed sometimes and they just go with no DOF zooms to get it done.

That's why it's nice to see a show like "House of Cards" where they take their time and get it right. I think producers under-estimate the payoff from just taking a little more time and using primes or better glass in general. Hell, if you're gonna use a zoom, then get an Optimo, where it's still going to give you some character. Maybe it's a money/rental thing...? Shave off money from the catering budget and put it into the glass

 

[Mike P.]

The first season was coloured by Fincher.

Also, zooms aren't that bad... If HoC was shot on zooms it probably wouldn't change the shows appearance (assuming they were used as a variable prime and they didn't actually zooming.)

 

[Matthew Scott]

Great stuff, I remember you on the LED discussion, right? Weren't you the one who said you bought some cheap LEDs and they worked great? I actually took that advice to heart and just bought a mix and match set from Amazon/Fotodiox. I think ePhoto lights are the same? I was going to get cheap Ikans but you or something said these kinda were fine, no complaints. They seem great to me, just on my personal, little projects I've been playing with. For the price of one Ikan, I got two 1000s and one portable 500.

Sorry to get off my own topic

Thanks Jason, yeah the cheap ones are fine! I use mine on bigger jobs no problems Glad you took the leap, looking forward to seeing some of your results

 

[Nick Morrison]

The first season was coloured by Fincher.

Also, zooms aren't that bad... If HoC was shot on zooms it probably wouldn't change the shows appearce (assuming they were used as a variable prime and they didn't actually zooming.)

The only thing is they shoot in a lot of lowlight, hence the Master Primes. I think primes enforce a level of discipline that's important, though. They mandate your process. Having a zoom is always a temptation to "mix it up", which in the end can lead to a less taught, exacting visual language.

But I agree, Fincher seems disciplined enough to work either way.

 

[Mike P.]

The only thing is they shoot in a lot of lowlight, hence the Master Primes. I think primes enforce a level of discipline that's important, though. They mandate your process. Having a zoom is always a temptation to "mix it up", which in the end can lead to a less taught, exacting visual language.

But I agree, Fincher seems disciplined enough to work either way.

Whoa, whoa... does that mean they shot at lot wide open (or close to it)? T1.3~1.5? I figured they would've just shot 2.8 and used longer lenses... I was under the impression that all the interiors were shot in studio (so they could move the cam as far back as they wanted to get the frame.)

 

[Jason Honeycutt]

Whoa, whoa... does that mean they shot at lot wide open (or close to it)? T1.3~1.5? I figured they would've just shot 2.8 and used longer lenses... I was under the impression that all the interiors were shot in studio (so they could move the cam as far back as they wanted to get the frame.)

I actually just talked to Fincher's AC, who's a friend of mine, he said Fincher always shoots T1.3, so maybe that's a key part of it. Personally, I always try to shoot wide open and ND it down for a little more depth but it still doesn't look exactly like his yet. Maybe I have to get better at DaVinci.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I actually just talked to Fincher's AC, who's a friend of mine, he said Fincher always shoots T1.3, so maybe that's a key part of it. Personally, I always try to shoot wide open and ND it down for a little more depth but it still doesn't look exactly like his yet. Maybe I have to get better at DaVinci.

Awesome, I'm glad you replied Jason about the wide open. I was pretty sure they were shooting WO most of the time (hence having the Master Primes), but without re-reading the article I didn't want to give a categorical answer and mis-lead Mike.

Keep in mind, they are lighting the shit out of that show, and the compositions are sick. Its all adding up. The WO is just a key ingredient in a much bigger salad.

 

[Eric M Hurt]

I know a number of folks who work on it and they actually hardly light at all which shows in how the characters often get lost in the background.

They move fast and don't have time to do a proper job (like little to no light for separation).
There is an over all cool color temp which helps define it, although they go often with what the predominant location lighting is in many situations, the florescence in the newspaper for example. The glass is part of the look, but they often shoot pretty wide giving it a healthy DOF. I think the art direction, locations etc help prop the lighting up more then the lighting standing out as great work. Now Madmen, that's a different story....

 

[Nick Morrison]

I know a number of folks who work on it and they actually hardly light at all which shows in how the characters often get lost in the background.

They move fast and don't have time to do a proper job (like little to no light for separation).
There is an over all cool color temp which helps define it, although they go often with what the predominant location lighting is in many situations, the florescence in the newspaper for example. The glass is part of the look, but they often shoot pretty wide giving it a healthy DOF. I think the art direction, locations etc help prop the lighting up more then the lighting standing out as great work. Now Madmen, that's a different story....

Awesome feedback Eric. This is great. Thanks for sharing. Their shooting this in Baltimore right? On the episode where Frank gets his library, I instantly recognized my alma mater (Johns Hopkins) and freaked out (JHU is never on anyone's radar, so this was a first).

 

[Mike P.]

Thanks for the confirmation.

T1.3?? No wonder they use tripods and dollies only. If there were any kind of handheld/steadicam the AC would probably blow his brains out (especially if they're rocking 5k/1.3x crop)!

 

[Marc Wielage]

But in the case of House of Cards, I think it goes beyond technical specifics. It's about so much more than the camera and glass. They have a style, and they know it. That shows KNOWS what it is. From the lighting, to the performance, to the directing, to the syntax within the camera dept, to every small detail, that series lives and breathes what it is. And because of that...it comes to life...and leaves an impact like only a great work of art does.

I think it also helps that they're spending $4.5 million per episode, making it one of the highest-priced one-hour dramas on the air, plus they do a ton of careful post and several days of color correction. Money and talent are a big part of it.